You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter
552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 133696.

The City of Midland (the "city") received a request for information relating to twelve case
numbers. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under
sections 552.108 and 552.130 of the Government Code, as well as under the informer's
privilege in conjunction with section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered
the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.

Section 552.108(a)(2) of the Government Code excepts from disclosure information
concerning an investigation that concluded in a result other than conviction or deferred
adjudication. To establish the applicability of section 552.108(a)(2), a governmental body
must demonstrate that the requested information relates to a criminal investigation that has
concluded in a final result other than a conviction or deferred adjudication. In the absence
of such a demonstration, it is not excepted from public disclosure under section 552.108. In
raising section 552.108(a)(2), you state only that the requested records are "information
[that] deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime only in relation to an
investigation that did not result in a conviction or deferred adjudication." We find that such
a general contention is not sufficient; you must specifically demonstrate that section
552.108(a)(2) is applicable. Therefore, we conclude that requested information is not
protected under this section.

Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law,
either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." The informer's privilege has been
recognized by Texas courts. See Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). It protects from disclosure the identities of persons who report activities over which
the governmental body has criminal or quasi-criminal law-enforcement authority, provided
that the subject of the information does not already know the informer's identity. Open
Records Decision Nos. 515 at 3 (1988), 208 at 1-2 (1978). The informer's privilege does not
categorically protect from release basic information considered public by Houston Chronicle.
The identity of a complainant, whether an "informant" or not, may only be withheld upon
a showing that special circumstances exist.

We have addressed several special situations in which front page offense report information
may be withheld from disclosure. For example, in Open Records Decision No. 366 (1983),
this office agreed that the statutory predecessor to section 552.108 protected from disclosure
information about an ongoing undercover narcotics operation, even though some of the
information at issue was front page information contained in an arrest report. The police
department explained how release of certain details would interfere with the undercover
operation, which was ongoing and was expected to culminate in more arrests. Open Records
Decision No. 366 (1983); see Open Records Decision No. 333 at 2 (1982); cf. Open Records
Decision Nos. 393 (1983) (identifying information concerning victims of sexual assault),
339 (1982), 169 at 6-7 (1977), 123 (1976). Based upon the information provided to this
office, we do not believe that you have shown special circumstances sufficient to overcome
the presumption of public access to the identity of the complainant. Such information may
not be withheld under the informer's privilege.

Section 552.130 excepts from public disclosure information that relates to a motor vehicle
operator's or driver's license or permit issued by an agency of this state or a motor vehicle
title or registration issued by an agency of this state. Therefore, we agree that you must
withhold the driver's license numbers that you have marked in the submitted records. We
note, however, that we have marked additional information in the submitted documents that
you must withhold pursuant to section 552.130.

In addition, the social security numbers contained in your records may be confidential if they
were obtained or are maintained by the city pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or
after October 1, 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(viii); see Open Records Decision
No. 622 (1994). Section 552.352 of the Government Code provides criminal penalties for
the release of information considered confidential under chapter 552. Therefore, prior to
releasing the social security numbers we have marked, the city should ensure that the
numbers were not obtained or are not maintained by the department pursuant to any
provision of law enacted on or after October 1, 1990. In summary, except for the
information we have marked as confidential pursuant to section 552.130 and the social
security numbers as noted above, we find that the requested information must be released.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the
full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days.
Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the
governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general
have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id.
§ 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records;
2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be
provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental
body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one
of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report
that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839.
The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id.
§ 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,
411 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.